On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Obantec Support wrote:
> From: "Matthias Häker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > SPAM='spam'
> >
> > :0fw: $SPAM$LOGNAME.lock
> >
> > this will scan only one message for one user at a time.
>
> i thought the reason for using spamd/spamc was to provide a more
> efficient processing o
- Original Message -
From: "Matthias Häker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "spamassassin-users"
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: is lock needed when using spamd/c combo
John D. Hardin schrieb:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Obantec Support wr
John D. Hardin schrieb:
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Obantec Support wrote:
DROPPRIVS=yes
:0fw
* < 512000
| /usr/bin/spamc
:0:
* ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
$HOME/mail/spam
SPAM='spam'
:0fw: $SPAM$LOGNAME.lock
this will scan only one message for one user at a time.
Matthias
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Obantec Support wrote:
> DROPPRIVS=yes
> :0fw
> * < 512000
> | /usr/bin/spamc
> :0:
> * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes
> $HOME/mail/spam
That looks okay. There's a more complex example at
http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/antispam that you might want to look
at.
> do i need to use the lo
